Willie Parker is a “Christian” who admits to having “probably” performed more than ten thousand abortions since 2005. A communist dictator might say that one murder is a tragedy while ten thousand is just a statistic. But how does a so-called Christian rationalize the serial murder of thousands of innocent human beings? One convenient way is by denying they are human in the first place. Here is Parker’s rationalization:

“Another so-called fact put forth by antis is that ‘life begins at conception’ – the justification for the ridiculous claim that abortion is murder. As a Christian and a scientist, I can authoritatively attest that life does not begin at conception. This notion that the union of the egg and sperm constitutes a new person at that moment reflects a religious belief – and a deeply held one. But the fact is, as Justice Blackmun so eloquently wrote way back in 1973, in the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, there is no historical, philosophical, or even scientific consensus on when life begins.” P. 145. Life’s Work: A Moral Argument For Choice.

There are at least three major problems embedded in that one statement. They are briefly dissected below:

Parker’s agnosticism on life’s origin is undermined by scientific consensus. There is not a single embryology textbook in use in medical schools, which disputes the central claim of pro-lifers that life begins at conception. That is one reason why Parker’s 217-page book lacks a single footnote or endnote. The evidence is not on his side so he hides it. If some reputable embryology text disputes the consensus that life begins at conception then Parker should provide a full citation. Parker cannot produce the citation because no such source exists.

Parker’s own worldview disqualifies him as a religious authority. Parker’s use of the phrase “a religious belief” is a reflection of his idea that there is no such thing as any one correct religious belief. He has stated repeatedly that there is not any right interpretation of the Bible – or, for that matter, any right interpretation of Christianity. When he says that “as a Christian” he can “authoritatively attest” that “life does not begin at conception” he is asking to be exempt from his own worldview. When others speak, he embraces relativism by claiming truth does not exist. When he speaks, he claims to speak “authoritatively” implying that he speaks truth. But if we hold Parker to his repeated claims there is no absolute truth then there is no such thing as any “authority” in matters of science or religion. Everyone’s view is equally invalid. The pursuit of knowledge is therefore futile.

Blackmun’s agnosticism on life’s origin confines him to constitutional agnosticism. Blackmun was wrong back in 1973 when he said there was no consensus on the issue of when life begins. But he created an even bigger problem than that when he claimed that the right to reproductive choice is inextricably bound to the question of when life begins. If the unborn is human, according to Blackmun, then there is no right to abort. Conversely, if the unborn is not human then there is a right to abort under a theory of reproductive privacy. As Francis Beckwith has observed, that means that if you are agnostic on the issue of when life begins, you must also be agnostic on the limits of a woman’s constitutional right to choose. Therefore, when Parker embraces Blackmun’s agnosticism on the issue of when life begins he unwittingly embraces his agnosticism concerning the parameters of a woman’s right to choose. In short, Parker has no firm grasp on the boundaries of the “right” he is defending.

Of course, reasonable people recognize that Parker’s agnosticism is all just a cynical ploy. He knows that the entity he aborts is a distinct, living, and whole human being (to see the visual evidence, go to www.CaseForLife.com). Fortunately, not all abortion doctors are as dishonest as Parker. For example, abortionist Warren Hern once stated:

“We have reached a point in this particular technology where there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.”

It is notable that Hern made that statement just five years after Roe v. Wade wrongly claimed that abortions were justified because of the uncertainty of the status of the unborn. That was over a quarter of a century before Willie Parker began his spree of dismembering over 10,000 distinct, living, and whole human beings.

Since embarking on a long and profitable career of human dismemberment, Willie Parker has stated that, “Science is the only judge before which each and every party stands entirely equal.” He has also stated that, “I approach my adversaries with compassion for their faith, but armed with science.” He even goes so far as to say that, “There is a period, between about twenty-two and twenty-five weeks of gestational age, during which ‘life’ is a vague state.”

It would be more accurate for Parker to have said that science-denying fundamentalism is a threat to human equality and that those justifying abortion must come armed with propaganda disguised as religious compassion. His contention that even as late as twenty-five weeks after conception one can still claim agnosticism on whether a life has begun is nothing short of mind-boggling. It is propaganda even Parker cannot possibly believe.

Nonetheless, Willie Parker holds the line at twenty-five weeks. He simply will not perform an abortion on a twenty-six week old human fetus. Is it because he has finally recognized its humanity at that point? Or is it simply because he lacks the skill to kill and extract something that large?

In the next installment, we finally get an honest answer from America’s most prolific “Christian” killer.